Definition of Marxism

Karl Marx is infamous as one of Western Culture’s so-called Unholy Trinity, consisting of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and last but not least, Karl Marx. These three are the authors of fatally flawed theories that became major, in fact, arguably the most major of all erroneous theories to ever infect rational thought in the history of Western Civilization. All are widely held to be “scientific” and yet all have no scientific basis whatsoever. All are easily falsified when subjected to objective critical thinking; none have any scientific evidence to back them up, all have heavy scientific evidence weighing against them. And yet they all enjoy popular support in the “scientific” community. Showing that science today is more a matter of consensus than of proofs, experiment, empiricism, objectivity and honest critical evaluation. And, proving that, today, popularity rules the once scientific laboratory.

Definition of Marxism: The economic, social, political, pseudo-scientific philosophy, theory, belief, or system based on the works of Karl Marx of Germany. The theory seeks the elimination of the notion of private property in order to gain control of the economic "means of production" by taking it from the bourgeois (the wealthy or propertied class) for the benefit of the proletariat (working class.) His philosophy of history was called "historical materialism" in which his goal was to bring about the end of history, by means of an eventual perfect, classless, utopian society he called Communism.

Marxist notions of collectivization and redistribution of the property of the bourgeois puts it on a collision course with the economic philosophy of Capitalism and free markets, and also with the social-governmental philosophies related to Democracy, in the oldest, pre-Marxism sense of that word.

Marxism seeks to promote class warfare or, today, at least, class strife, and succeeds best where clear, major delineations exist between classes. Since the USA has an enormous natural "middle class" and little or no obvious delineation between classes, Marxism has only made inroads there among the
SLIMC1
, which represents a very small but vocal minority that has a very high visibility, and a lot of influence. At the moment, the majority still rules in the USA. (Except when representative law is overruled and when new unrepresentative law is established by the unrepresentative courts.)

In the intermediary phase between Marxism – the conquest of Capitalist-exploiter Bourgeoisie and “The State” – and Communism, which is called, alternatively, Socialism or the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "Party" rules. Marx referred to this Socialism, or Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as an unpleasant but necessary phase until the population and the workers were “perfected” and ready for the next phase, the worker’s paradise of Communism.

As a point of historical fact no nation that ever entered the “temporary phase” of Socialism ever got out of it on their own. There is no next phase. Socialism is, in reality, almost definitively, dictatorship, pure and simple. It is the death of representative government. No Marxist will ever admit it, but permanent dictatorship is the true but hidden ultimate goal of the Marxist movement. A devout Marxist is necessarily a
MEJTML14
, who must and who will promote the great Communist Lie to others.

The fatal flaws of Marxism are not merely obvious, clear and present in Das Kapital, and in the historical record of the movement, but even in the most brief, cursory, nutshell definition of Marxism, as in this one.

Perfection is not of this world, but the next, and so a perfect or "pure" Socialism is quite unlikely to exist. However, in the interest of showing the ideal that a pure Socialism strives for, the Pure Socialism link will describe that ideal. Under the definition of Marxism, Socialism, remember, is a mere stepping stone leading to Communist Utopia. For the counterpoint to Pure Socialism, look at the Pure Democracy link.

Communism – in which history stops and everyone is perpetually happy in a worldly worker’s paradise - is, of course, nothing but a silly pipe dream.

And so is the false notion that Marx presented to the world a system of “Natural Social Evolution” in which Capitalism is a mere stepping-stone or link “species” along the evolutionary way into Socialism and eventually Communism. America became the recognized America she is not by gradual evolution, but by violent revolution. It started July 4 1776, and it was a very big deal at the time. It was even in all the newspapers. Most Marxists missed it completely, or pretend it didn’t happen.

The false Utopian claim that Communism will eventually “feed all the people” and eliminate hunger from the world is the seemingly moral bait that draws in the young, the idealistic, the naive and the inexperienced. Communism does not exist, and Socialism is among the most closed, menacing, inhospitable, uncharitable and impoverishing government systems in existence.

Marxism, like Islam, is so antagonistic to the American Constitution as to render them mutually exclusive ideas and ideals. One may serve Marxism or the American Constitution, but not both. Constitutional America and Marxism cannot be merged and cannot coexist. Only one may survive; the other must die. It is not possible for any Marxist to swear any oath to uphold the American Constitution without giving a false oath. Not an oath of office; not an oath of American military service; not an oath of naturalized citizenship; not any oath to support, protect or defend the US Constitution. A Marxist may not honestly profess the pledge of allegiance to our flag. But then, Marxists are not honest.

Go to the actual Marxism page to see a more in depth treatment of Marxism, and a realistic comparison of Marxist Socialism to the combination of individual liberty and Capitalism.

For classic examples of the elaborate “open lies” of Marxism in the quoted words of History’s most preeminent Marxist practitioners, such as Lenin, Khrushchev and even decisions of Congresses of the Communist International, see the Marxist Fundamentals page by Prof. Libor Brom. There you will see that Lenin was quite open about his intention to destroy America and about exactly how he planned to do it.

Lenin is touted by Marxists to be the “good guy” Marxist, at least when compared to Stalin. Note well that Lenin, among modern rulers, was the second (after Robespierre) to employ a state terror campaign as a political tool, and his terror campaign was the worst in history up to that point. The only reason he didn’t kill and impoverish more citizens than Stalin or Mao was that he had a stroke and died before he really got rolling.

Go to the 2008 Obama Election page (and the rest of the “Obamunism” series) to see where Western Civilization socio-political trends are taking us. See especially the Marxism of Obama article.

Finally, for an American path out of the Marxist mess we are in, see the Up From Obamunism page.

The Marxist lie has even invaded and infected intellectual thought in the Catholic Church under the guise of Social Justice.

Sarcastic Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devices that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation. Click a footnote link to see the gory details.)

The writings of Marx (Das Kapital; Communist Manifesto,) history and personal experience. I have seen so-called Communism up close and personal, on two continents. See also many of the volumes available at the Reference Material link. This definition of Marxism page is merely a brief, tier-three link-to page of convenience to several other more in depth pages on this site. See the actual Marxism page for a more complete explanation.

Anyone who thinks that Socialism, which was invented by Marx, is merely another more or less neutral government organization method among others has not studied (or has been miss-educated in) the history of Socialism. Ask an older Lithuanian, or Ukrainian, or European Jew, about the true, historical, progressive nature of the collectivization process, and how it worked in actual practice.

Free people make wealth; government only consumes it. There are only three sources of annual revenue for any government. The government can tax private wealth; the government can borrow wealth from an outside source, or the government can print money. When there is limited or no wealth being created by a free populace operating in a free market and taxes dry up, and when money cannot be borrowed from outside sources, the state is then forced to make Socialist collectivization total. Merely printing money eventually makes money worthless.

In the history of the Soviet Union nations and the Warsaw Pact nations, once all civil rights were subjugated in the interest of the Party, and the people were no longer creating annual wealth to be taxed, the police, petty bureaucrats and useful-idiot thugs began coming around.

First, they collected obvious wealth, in the form of money, gold, jewelry, and art; anything of value. Every cop, bureaucrat and Party thug skimmed for themselves whatever could be gotten away with, and passed the rest up the bureaucratic ladder to the dictator.

Finally, they collected the people, herding them onto cattle cars. Resisters, or those hated by or out of favor with the dictator of the moment, went off to prisons, asylums, slave labor camps or even death camps. The rest went off to farm collectives, or factory or refinery collectives, or wherever the Party needed them, for they, too, as workers, were part of the means of production to be collected, redistributed and owned by the Party (actually, by the dictator.)

The only difference between the German or Nazi National Socialist and the Russian Bolshevik International Communist variants of Socialism was that the German Nazi variant ruled, directed and commanded the no longer private owners of private commerce, and the Russian Bolshevik variant completely nationalized private commerce, putting Party bureaucrats in charge of every aspect of it.

Those today who think that the Social Democracy exemplified by France and other European countries today is “not so bad” do not realize that the process is not yet finished there. Those countries are just farther down the slippery slope than we are. The inevitable end for them is actual Socialism, as exemplified today by Cuba and North Korea. This means a third-world, shanty-town, impoverished existence for the common man. Ask a Cuban refugee what it was that he fled from. Ask any refugee from any Communist land the same question. And note well that no refugees have ever fled into any Communist land.

What makes the gradual, incremental Socialist slippery-slope process inevitable is the principle that, for proper natural function, a free market must always remain free; any hindrance in market freedom leads to free market failure. The more the free market place is interfered with the more it will fail, and the less wealth it will produce on an annual basis. The inevitable spiral involves incremental interference in free commerce and disruption of the natural, fundamental economic law of supply and demand. An un-free market inevitably leads to commercial failure and completely controlled market, i.e., Socialism.

I always find it fascinating when I read articles, where Science and Religion are pitted against one another. And yes this article does that too. It claims that sciences and social sciences are in fact not scientific at all. It is a well known fact, argued amongst many sociologists, that science does not always qualify for the guidelines it has set for classifying what a science actually is. In saying that to attack the works of Darwin, Freud or even Marx, is rather baseless in itself. As a Catholic myself I find this 'Who is Right' debate between Science and Religion, practically void.

So far in the world, no country has ever practiced "True Communism". Although this is the case, there is no denying the impact it has had. Cuba was ranked as having the best Health-Care system in the world. According to the World Health Care Organization, Cuba is second only to Italy in terms of doctor to patient ratio, with 170 people to a Doctor. And the mere fact that people still want to become doctors, despite earning on average 50-60% less than your average Cuban Taxi driver shows, that here are a group of doctors who aren't just in it for the money, like many British and American doctors who are on 6 figure salaries.

In response to Vic, who claims that Free People and Capitalism make wealth, I think the current economic climate proves that Capitalism itself is flawed. I found the end of that article particularly insulting as it claims to show where "Western Civilization socio-political trends are taking us.", I just have to say that it was the Conservative Bush administration who got us into this mess in the first place.

Date: Tue Mar 24 11:30:40 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Rae:

My guess is you haven’t read much on this website yet; I do not pit science and religion against each other. I pit science and scientism against each other. I see science and religion as two separate but not mutually exclusive disciplines, where reason reigns.

You are quite right about the impact Communism has made. Ask an older Ukrainian; he’ll tell you all about it. If you really believe Cuba’s health care is in any way superior to or even up to the standards of your own vastly inferior health care available in London, you’ve been absorbing too much Michael Moore type propaganda. For a brief look at where American health care is going, see the National Health Care page I just finished this morning.

I’m sure the typical Cuban citizen would be happy to go to Pedro’s Brain Surgery and Fifties Era Transmission Repair Shop rather than to any American medical facility. Especially if he could get a new exhaust system installed or a brake job while laying around in post-op. I think you’re right on there; lots of cab drivers would prefer to become surgeons because of the better work environment. (Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think your idealistic, naïve, utopian altruism is showing.)

And, once again – ho hum, heavy sigh and here we go again – we learn that Capitalism has failed. What on earth makes you think that Bush is a conservative? He might predominantly be a social conservative on moral issues, but he is most certainly not an economic conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He spent our money like a drunken sailor.

Sorry that you felt insulted by the current socio-political trend of all of Western civilization. If you like that trend then what you should be feeling is humiliation rather than being insulted. Where do you think Western culture is headed? To some happy place?

I agree that Capitalism is flawed. So is everything else. Perfection is not of this world, but the next. The problem is that, unlike Capitalism, Socialism falsely claims to be perfect, and leads the idealistic non-thinkers to their doom.

See the Great Communist Lie page for a more down to earth and realistic examination of the Socialism you so idealize and perhaps idolize.

Vic:I found this on another blog site that had copied part of your article; this was in one of the added comments and I thought it pertinent to the conversation.

A simple analogy

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

I thought you might be interested in what other sites are saying about your article, and that the story is an apt analogy.

Little or no delineation between classes? Explain living in Harlem as opposed to Beverly Hills then. Mehaps?

Date: Tue Oct 06 06:08:47 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Activistbec:

”Mehaps” is new to me – google tells me it may be a combination of perhaps and maybe, so that will be my assumption.

There is no rigid delineation between classes in America and there never has been. What that means is that no one is damned by social constraints to remain in the same condition for life. A poor person can become a millionaire in a heartbeat, and a millionaire can become a pauper in a heartbeat, and they do, all the time. Even in the pre-Civil-War era when we had two rigid classes, those being the slaves and the planters, there were a few cases of slaves, or those of slave ancestry, becoming planters and owners of slaves. Of course, both of those rigid classes were eventually eliminated by civil war, representative legislation and Constitutional amendment. Note also that those two rigid classes, when they existed, were very small in comparison to the existing American population.

Today, people are perfectly free to move in and out of neighborhoods such as Harlem (where quite a few rich people live) and Beverly Hills (where everyone is not necessarily rich). The only class-delineation that exists in America exists in minds that have been indoctrinated or miss-educated into believing that they are forever stuck in their current situation, there’s nothing they can do about it, and someone – Whitey, or someone – is hell bent on “keeping them in their place.” And that simply is not true.

Marxism depends entirely on promoting the lie of persistent class warfare. See the Deliverance from Evil article for the current situation in America’s struggle against ascendant Marxism. At the root of the problem, really, is the notion of making the world’s highways, byways and seas safe for free commerce and allowing (and protecting) the individual liberty that is required for free commerce to be possible. That effort began under the pagan Roman empire, and continues today with the American “super power”, or whatever you want to call us.

Imagine, if you will, what the nature of this world might be today if America did not exist. I submit that no super-power nation on earth has been more benign, benevolent, loyal (until now) and charitable to her neighbors than America.

The greatest lie in Marxism is that worldly perfection is possible. It’s a lie. Perfection is not of this world, but the next.

So ... you title the piece "Definition of Marxism" and then go on to describe Leninism, with a bit of Stalinism thrown in just to make it look really evil.

I understand that this is essentially a polemical piece of writing, but if you are going to take a stance as an authority figure for whatever reason you should be more discriminating. Labeling a disparate group of views as all being Marxism is misleading your readers, and that is not good.

Date: Mon Dec 07 05:09:18 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Roaring Fish:

Whatever is really evil needs no help to make it look evil. Anyone who really believes that Leninism, Stalinism or any other “interpretation” or variant of Marxism are any sort of well thought-out philosophies has got to be dumber than a box of rocks. The only difference between Lenin and Stalin involved the personal proclivities of the dictators.

The whole point is that Marxism is an empty suit. It is merely a tool of use to any ruthless person who wants to get himself into absolute dictatorial power. The rest of the organization of the state will then take on the flavor and the character of the dictator, with lots of “expert” fools like you to help it along.

I take no stance as any authority figure regarding any false teaching. I leave that to others. What I like to do is shoot down false teaching, and highlight the egg on the faces of those who have gained recognition as authorities on the false teaching.

This is, essentially, an attack site, and that is what an attack site does.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Mon Dec 07 07:30:27 2009

From: Roaring Fish
Email: Location: Comment:

"It is merely a tool of use to any ruthless person who wants to get himself into absolute dictatorial power."

Right there is where you go wrong. Marx never advocated dictators - that was Stalin or maybe Lenin if you want to twist the concept of dictator enough.

You may believe you are attacking Marx, but in fact you are attacking... well, to be honest I don't what you are attacking. A windmill? A straw-man of your own creation? It sure as hell isn't Marx!

If you want to attack Marx, then do so in a credible way. Attack his premise or attack his conclusions. Just saying "Oh... Marx and Lenin and Stalin are all the same and all wrong because I say so" shows nothing but a lack of subject knowledge.

"with lots of “expert” fools like you to help it along."

Date: Mon Dec 07 20:33:04 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Roaring Fish

Ho hum, heavy sigh and here we go again. Who cares what Marx advocated? What is important is how his theory manifested itself whenever and wherever it was applied, by anyone, ever, in all of history. Lenin called himself a Marxist. Stalin called himself a Marxist. Hitler called himself a Marxist. Mao called himself a Marxist. Ho called himself a Marxist. Castro called himself a Marxist.

What I am attacking is all of them, which is to say, I am attacking Marxism. Obviously, you still have not looked at the Argument Refuting Marxism page. Refute the argument if you can. Or go to the Marxism page itself, and refute any of that if you can.

Maybe you’ve earned a Ph.D. in Leninism, or an MA in Stalinism or something; if so, I feel sorry for you, for your whole field of study is nothing but a house of cards, with no foundation. You’ve wasted your time and effort learning it. It’s all false.

Anyone who supports Marx has no credibility here. Nothing Marx wrote is worth a warm bucket of spit. It’s a huge, social-science / political science / economic theory fraud.

The guy claiming to be defining Marxism should. If you are going to pretend to be an authority on this you have a moral duty to ensure that you know the subject matter and present an accurate, unbiased picture. You are failing in that moral duty.

In fact it is worse than that - you are *deliberately* presenting false information to further your own ideology, while hiding behind a sham of religion. That is exactly the same tactic as militant Islamists preaching in mosques, who are also presenting false information to further their ideology by pretending it is religion.

When they do that, it is wrong. When you do it, it is still wrong.

"What I am attacking is all of them, which is to say, I am attacking Marxism."

That sentence is self-contradictory, and highlights where you are wrong. "All of them" and "Marxism" are logically exclusive statements.

Date: Tue Dec 08 05:21:51 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Roaring Fish:

Try to pay attention; I know it’s hard sometimes. What I am defining is an evil ideology masquerading as a scientific theory with nothing whatsoever to back it up other than a massive general consensus of fools, many of whom are educated far beyond their intelligence. What you are defending is that false ideology, as a socio-economic system, which has never been demonstrated to work as a matter of practical fact, anywhere, ever.

We’re not talking about my religion or my pro-American ideology here; we can discuss that on any of many other pages in this site. What we are discussing here is the massive global fraud of Marxism. Marx’s Communism does not, has not, will not, and cannot possibly exist anywhere. Marx’s Socialism, exactly as he described it, has never been observed, whether achieved by natural “evolution” or achieved by bloody revolution.

Islam is indeed another false ideology, this one masquerading as a religion, but little different from Marxism. See the Islam is the Enemy page for my most recent rant on that particular massive scam. So-called Socialist lands are poorer than Capitalist lands, and the more Socialist they are, the more impoverished they are.

Every single one of history’s great Marxist dictators that I named, including Hitler, and many more, read Marx, followed Marx and claimed to be Marxists. That’s just an unavoidable fact. None of them achieved or even tried to achieve anything like what Marx’s writing theorized or envisioned. Neither did anyone else. No so-called Socialist country has ever been recognized as any kind of economic power house. China’s economy begins to roar only after adopting Capitalism to some degree. The Chinese people are still ruled rather than represented by their government, which is to say, they are dictated to.

Face it. Marxism is false.

Marxism is a pop-fad among pseudo-intellectuals, and a useful tool for would be tyrants, and nothing more. Get over it.

'What I am defining is an evil ideology masquerading as a scientific theory with nothing whatsoever to back it up other than a massive general consensus of fools, many of whom are educated far beyond their intelligence.'

You are welcome to invent an enemy to rant against, I have no problem with that. What you shouldn't be doing is calling it Marxism when it isn't. Why be dishonest about it? What do you imagine you are achieving?

'What you are defending is that false ideology, as a socio-economic system, which has never been demonstrated to work as a matter of practical fact, anywhere, ever.'

I am not defending anything. I am only pointing out that you are spreading information that is plainly, simply, wrong.

'Marx’s Communism does not, has not, will not, and cannot possibly exist anywhere.'

That is because, as I have mentioned several times, it is a political philosophy. It is not a political system.

Your argument makes as much sense as saying Plato was wrong about everything because his republic never existed.

'Every single one of history’s great Marxist dictators that I named'

Here you go again... 'Marxist dictator' is a contradiction of terms.

'So-called Socialist lands are poorer than Capitalist lands, and the more Socialist they are, the more impoverished they are.'

*sigh*

On 2008 figures, the USA ranks 13th in GDP/capita, beaten by 8 different socialist economies.

'Face it. Marxism is false.'

You clearly don't know what Marxism is ...

Date: Thu Dec 10 19:52:27 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Roaring Fish:

You cannot tell an ideology from a philosophy, and you don’t know what the word philosophy means. You keep calling Marxism a philosophy, and Communism a philosophy, implying that they are ephemeral or other-worldly or non-material things to which we may not apply empirical testing or the scientific method. Yet in your recent comments after the Argument Refuting Marxism page you quote from a document called The German Ideology (not a philosophy) stressing empiricism and strictly empirical observation without any “mystification and speculation” implying a strictly scientific method. Make up your tiny little mind. Are you talking material science or not?

You may be the one who doesn’t really know what Marxism is. Perhaps you’ve been studying it too long. You obviously love it. And, whether you like it or not, all of the Marxist dictators I named were all Marxists and they were all dictators, so you’ll just have to get over it as best you can.

I put the GDP figures for 1999 in the 2008 World Economic Condition page; then, after some comments were added, I added a comment including the 2009 GDP figures, which show that the USA is ranked 10 in the world. I noticed that Indonesia is ranked 130.

I must completely agree with Roaring Fish Vic your arguments are ridiculous and uneducated. Your simple and contradictory arguments do not make sense. Your argument is that psychopaths and the insane who hold power and have miss used it and claim are Marxists. Well ok then how about all the Popes and Crusaders and even Christian denominations who claim to be following the true faith. They all claim they are doing God's will but are often delusional and idiotic, much like the so called supporters of Marxism. Stop using these hideous examples of Stalin and focus on the benefits of Lenin's reign in Russia, you'll find that many benefits were seen across the society. Also look at the alternative these places had to Communism which, like Russia are far more monstrous.

Date: Thu Dec 10 20:33:06 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Matt (not a Communist):

Sorry for my simplicity and ridiculosity, if that’s a word, and for my poor education. I’m just a working man who doesn’t claim scholarship or high academic credentials. But I had to correct a whole lot of miss-spelled words in your comment for you – I hope you don’t mind.

You’re getting pretty far off topic with the popes and the Medieval Crusades, but that’s to be expected from those who have no real argument or counter argument regarding the subject matter at hand.

There were no “benefits” of Lenin’s reign. He authored the greatest terror since Robespierre of the French Revolution, only to be outdone later by Stalin. I suppose you have been taught that Lenin was a warm, wonderful, cuddly little man who loved puppy dogs and small children, but that simply is not the case.

Don’t feel too bad, Matt; there are lots and lots of philosophical Communists out there who don’t even know what they are. You have plenty of company.

'You keep calling Marxism a philosophy, and Communism a philosophy, implying that they are ephemeral or other-worldly or non-material things to which we may not apply empirical testing or the scientific method.'

I don't call Marxism a political philosophy. I *know* Marxism is a political philosophy, in large part because Marx said it was, and he was a philosopher, with a PhD in Philosophy, and so on. That and just about every textbook on the subject says so - have you ever actually read one?

'Yet in your recent comments after the Argument Refuting Marxism page you quote from a document called The German Ideology (not a philosophy) stressing empiricism and strictly empirical observation without any “mystification and speculation” implying a strictly scientific method. Make up your tiny little mind. Are you talking material science or not?"

empirical [ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl]
adj
1. derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory 2. (Medicine) (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof 3. (Philosophy) Philosophy a. (of knowledge) derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles Compare a priori, a posteriori b. (of a proposition) subject, at least theoretically, to verification Compare analytic [4] synthetic [4]

Empirical means through observation and experience. It does not mean scientific or theory or hypotheses. Marx was developing a philosophy based on materialism. Of course he used empirical evidence - that is the whole point of materialism! Let me explain:

Idealism - humans are shaped and motivated by ideas.
Materialism - humans are shaped and motivated by the material world.

In a materialist philosophy, you have to observe the material world to explain behaviour, AKA empirical observation.

'And, whether you like it or not, all of the Marxist dictators I named were all Marxists and they were all dictators, so you’ll just have to get over it as best you can.'

Because they said so? Wow - that must be true then, if a political dictator said it.

Politicians say a lot of things, and it is naive to take it as gospel truth.

'I suppose you have been taught that Lenin was a warm, wonderful, cuddly little man who loved puppy dogs and small children, but that simply is not the case.'

Yet you totally believe him when he claims to be a Marxist...

'I put the GDP figures for 1999 in the 2008 World Economic Condition page; then, after some comments were added, I added a comment including the 2009 GDP figures, which show that the USA is ranked 10 in the world. I noticed that Indonesia is ranked 130.'

Whatever. The US still lags behind socialist countries so your attempt to equate socialism with poverty is still contradicted by actual real-life facts.

I fail to see what is so significant about Indonesia.

Date: Fri Dec 11 19:55:21 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

My dear Miss Fish:

You are able to know with absolute certainty that Marx is a great philosopher because he said so. But you cannot believe that Castro, who calls himself a Marxist-Leninist is any sort of a Marxist or follower of Marxian philosophy, although he says he is. Ah, yes, I see, I see. What a unique and golden perception you have. Lots and lots of text books extol Marx as a great philosopher and lots and lots of academics teach his beautiful philosophy. As much as I hate to pop your happy little balloon, Workers of the world, unite! is not philosophy. It is the lowest form of rabble-rousing incitement to bloody revolution. It is the generation of envy, jealousy, strife and class warfare where it did not previously exist. It is the creation, nurturing and feeding of class envy even where classes are blurred, transient or do not even exist.

You keep proving my point that all Marxism has to back it up is a lot of elitist head-bobby consensus, and nothing else. There has been no empiricism applied here, ever. Nothing has ever been peer reviewed, for there has been nothing to peer review. No Marxian socio-economic progression, whether through natural “evolution” or even through forced bloody revolution, from Capitalism through Socialism to Communism has ever even been observed by anyone. It’s a joke. Oops; I’m sorry; it’s (ahem) a political philosophy, and not a political system, and therefore exempt from empiricism, testing, proofs and so forth. Except for the economics part of it, and this leapt from hypothesis to theory by the exclusive means of scientific consensus.

How do we know these things? Teacher says so, and this text book right here says so, and Marx got himself a Ph.D., and you know it’s all true, and it’s all wonderful, and some day it will make the world a perfect place. Well, maybe after all those pesky opponents are properly put in their places.

Right. Dream on, silly girl.

What is missing is the application of individual critical thinking, because your education has prepared you for herding rather than independence. Your chosen or inculcated “philosophy” leaves you with two life choices: you may either join the herd, or you may join the herders.

”But, comparing GDP from one nation to another doesn’t mean much when expressed as a mere percentage of growth. For one thing, in many nations growth is a matter subject to radical change, up or down, during some years. And the percentage increase or decrease says nothing about the quantity produced. The more useful comparative tool is the Per Capita GDP, or, a given nation’s total GDP amount in American dollars for that year, divided by that nation’s population. I submit that Per Capita GDP is about as good a tool as may be used to determine a people’s or a nation’s wealth production in any given year.”

In the main article is a list of the nations ranked by wealth production for the year 1999. But down below in the comment dialogues, I included the nations ranked by wealth production for the year 2009, and that’s what I was talking about. Comparing straight GDP is meaningless, except to show how a nation did that year as opposed to the previous year.

One sentence, “workers of the world, unite” taken out of the vast output of a man is insufficient to determine whether what he wrote about was a philosophy or something else. Most authors agree that Marx was a philosopher and what he developed was a philosophy. Yes?

Date: Day Wed Dec 16 06:36:14 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Pasquale:

Consensus is not enough. Pure scientific consensus is what Von Hayek labeled Scientism to differentiate it from real science that relied on the scientific method. Marxist “philosophy,” fatally-flawed Marxist economic theory and everything Marx proposed has nothing behind it other than massive, world-wide consensus. See the argument refuting Marxism page for the lack of evidence for Marxism, and see the great Communist lie page for the real-world practical application of Marxist theory.

The Communist Manifesto has got to be the most thoroughly recognized, most quoted and most relied-upon polemic of Marx (and Engles) that Marx ever penned. The contents of that document have been used by every single so-called Marxist dictator to ever be raised to power.

There is nothing philosophical about ”Workers of the world, unite!” As I said before, it is a rabble-rousing incitement to bloody revolution, and a class-envy generating incitement to class warfare. Over the decades it has been used by multiple would-be tyrants to monger pure greed and then recruit hordes of helpful revolutionaries from among the most decadent and the most idealistic alike, to simply get a new tyrant into power. Stalin called them his useful idiots.

None of them achieved the ideal set of circumstances described by Marx, whether in so-called Socialism or in so-called Communism. It’s all a lie. It’s all dictatorship dressed up to look like some variant of Marxism, or something Marx described, or the correct Marxism, or the best interpretation of it. But it makes no difference.

You want to talk about how it manifested itself? You know nothing of how it manifested itself. You are attacking Marxism because of a worldview that is represented in rhetoric exploded in the media. You have no idea what happened in China or Cuba or Russia, You weren't there. In Cuba, they have more representation per capita than any country on earth. More representation = more democracy = less dictatorship.

Date: Wed Dec 23 17:35:57 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Kevin:

Sure. But, let me note how interesting it is how you know what I know, or more precisely, what I know nothing of. Perhaps you are clairvoyant, or prophetic. Your “reason,” attributed to me, for attacking Marxism is pure bunk. I attack Marxism because it is a complete fraud. True, I wasn’t in China or Cuba or Russia, but lots of Chinese and Cubans and Russians are right here in America, and we have access to history, which is a very hard thing to kill, even for Marxists.

I agree that there is more representation per capita in Cuba than in America, at the moment; Obama is working to change that. There may be as many as one upper-class Cuban government worker for each lower-class Cuban citizen worker. The upper-class government workers are the ones who get to say things like “Shut up and get on the cattle car”, and the lower-class ordinary citizens are the ones who get to say things like “Yes sir.”

All Cuban workers are happy in their workers paradise, and thrilled with their government mandated $20 per month pay. That’s why so many of them risked their very lives, and many lost their lives, trying to get out of there on anything that would float. Here’s what I wrote about their wonderful Revolution in the Great Communist Lie page:

I remember what happened in Cuba very well; I was an idealistic youngster then, and Castro appeared to be quite a heroic figure to me. His seemingly desperate situation in the mountains of Cuba while seeking to oust the gangster Batista and establish Democracy in Cuba was inspiring. He was backed by virtually the whole of the American media; I followed it closely, read every word of it and paid very close attention to all of it.

When he actually won, and all the gangsters fled, and he immediately announced to the world that he was a Marxist-Leninist, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I couldn’t believe it. But, here’s an even more surprising thing – at least it was surprising to me – the media, our media, never changed it’s tune, never missed a beat, continually and consistently remained in Castro’s corner and portrayed him as a heroic Cuban patriot and an all around wonderful and glorious new leader on the world stage.

That was when I began looking more suspiciously at our American media. Marxism requires either desperate crisis or deep deception, or both, to succeed. I saw this whole Cuban “Revolution” as a great act of treachery; our
SLIMC1
, to this very day, sees Castro as not only a valiant and heroic Revolutionary, but also as a warm and wonderful human being who loves puppy dogs and small children, and can do no wrong. In fact, he is a dictator, little different than any other dictator.

Castro ousted the Batista regime, which was corrupt, consorted with gangsters, and was a fairly typical Banana Republic dictatorship. But the Batista regime, as bad as it was, posed no international threat to anyone, and had no interest in exporting any particular brand of Revolution beyond it’s own shores. There were no Cuban soldiers in Africa or in Central or South America under Batista; that all happened under Castro. Today, the Cuban government funds itself primarily by drug running; the happy worker population is far too impoverished to produce any serious income to tax.

Manifest: To make clear or evident; to show plainly to the eye or mind by actual observation, experience or solid evidence.

The only true Marxist society was the Paris Commune, when the city declared itself a sovereign nation lasting three months in the spring of 1871. This being the only true form of Socialism, no one knows if this government style would be efficient. The commune was quite successful at some things, but failed at others. Then again, all fledgling nations suffer from this.

Furthermore, the form of a socialism Lenin formed in the Soviet Union was a completely perverted view of Socialism. Moreover, Stalinist Russia suffered from more of a tyrannical dictatorship than Socialism. He more than Lenin assumed control of complete power.

Finally, a Catholic Monastery operates on the same principles of Socialism, in that there are no classes, shared wealth, and everyone works for the whole. These are all aspects of Socialism.

So in the end, how can Marx be a member of the "Unholy Trinity" if his theories were nothing more than theories. Without free thought no one will ever grow.

Date: Wed Mar 31 20:59:46 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jordon:

You are far from the first to compare the perfect bureaucratic hierarchy of Roman Catholic Church to Marxism. Early Marxians used it as a model to emulate in building their perfect social system. Here’s what Von Mises said about it:

Plato’s ideal of elite rule has been converted into fact by the Catholic Church. The Roman Church, under the Tridentine organization as it emerged from the Counter Reformation, is a perfect bureaucracy. It has successfully solved the most delicate problem of every non-Democratic government, the selection of the top executives. To every boy access to the highest dignities of the Church is virtually open. The local priest is anxious to smooth the way to education of the most intelligent youths of his parish; they are trained in the Bishop’s seminary; once ordained, their further career depends entirely upon their character, their zeal, and their intellect. There are among the prelates many scions of noble and wealthy families. But they do not owe their office to their ancestry. They have to compete, on almost equal terms, with the sons of poor peasants, workers and serfs. The princes of the Catholic Church, the abbots and teachers of the theological universities, are a body of eminent men. Even in the most advanced countries they are worthy rivals of the most brilliant scholars, philosophers, scientists, and statesmen.

It is to this marvelous instance that the authors of modern socialist utopias refer as an example. The case is manifest with two forerunners of present-day socialism: Count Henri de Saint Simon and August Comte. But it was essentially the same with most other socialist authors, although for obvious reasons they did not point to the Church as a model. No precedent of a perfect hierarchy could be found other than that presented by Catholicism.

However, the reference to the Church is fallacious. The realm of Christianity which the Pope and the other Bishops administer is not subject to any change. It is built upon a perennial and immutable doctrine. The creed is fixed forever. There is no progress and not evolution. There is only obedience to law and the dogma. The methods of selection adopted by the Church are very efficient in the government of a body clinging to an undisputed, unchangeable set of rules and regulation. They are perfect in the choice of the guardians of an eternal treasure of doctrine.

But the case of human society and civil government is different. It is the most precious privilege of man to strive ceaselessly for improvement and to fight by improved methods against the obstacles that nature opposes to his life and welfare. This innate impulse has transformed the descendants of crude cave dwellers into the somewhat civilized men of our age. But mankind has not yet reached a state of perfection beyond which no further progress is possible. The forces that brought about our present civilization are not dead. If not tied by a rigid system of social organization, they will go on and bring further improvement. The selective principle according to which the Catholic Church chooses its future chiefs is unswerving devotion to the creed and its dogmas. It does not look for innovators and reformers, or for pioneers of new ideas radically opposed to the old ones. But it is precisely this adamant conservatism that makes bureaucratic methods utterly inadequate for the conduct of social and economic affairs.

Bureaucratization is necessarily rigid because it involves the observation of established rules and practices. But in social life rigidity amounts to petrification and death. It is a significant fact that stability and security are the most cherished slogans of present-day “reformers.” If primitive men had adopted the principle of stability, they never would have gained security; they would long since have been wiped out by beasts of prey or microbes.

German Marxians coined the dictum: If socialism is against human nature, then human nature must be changed. They did not realize that if man’s nature is changed, he ceases to be man. In an all-round bureaucratic system neither the bureaucrats nor their subjects would any longer be real human beings. (Bureaucracy; Ludwig Von Mises; pp 101-103)

To the modern Marxist, today’s Roman Catholic Church would present the perfect model for a socialist bureaucracy, except for all that religious nonsense, of course. It solved the otherwise unsolvable problem: the peaceful transition of rule from one ruler to the next. However, in civil society, Von Mises pointed out that “If the decision between various candidates is not left to majority vote, no principle of selection remains other than civil war. The alternative to the democratic principle of selection through popular election is the seizure of power by ruthless adventurers.” … “The truth is that such a Fuhrer system must necessarily result in permanent civil war as soon as there are several candidates for supreme office.” I don’t know about you, but I don’t like war. Been there; done that; don’t care to do it again unless absolutely necessary.

Here’s some of what I said about Marxism in the still not finished Up From Obamunism page; hopefully I’ll finish writing it soon:

We have described Marxism and what’s wrong with it in great (perhaps too much) detail in the Marxism page. We described the foundational premises more briefly among our many definition pages in the Definition of Marxism page. We presented our brief refutation of Marxist Theory among our many Arguments Pro and Con pages in our Refuting Marxism page. We have described Marxism as a sham and a fraud, grown, driven and supported by two things: First, pseudo-intellectual fad infecting most seriously the elites of our society and of just about all modern societies. Second, it is used by ruthless would-be rulers as an ideological tool with which to recruit the naïve and the corrupt in order get themselves into power.

Marxism is a house built on straw. As an economic theory, it is so obviously and fatally flawed as to be stupid. As a political system, its ultimate goal of utopia is so impractical as to be clearly impossible. As any kind of a philosophy, it is a very bad joke.

We described the completely fraudulent nature of Marxism in The Great Communist Lie page. There we showed that there is nothing truthful about any part or any aspect of Marxism. There is nothing Marx or Engles wrote that is worth a warm bucket of spit. The intellectual elite is too elite, too over-confident and too impressed with itself to know that. Some few of them who do know the true nature of Marxism are evil men with hidden agendas.

The majority of the elites are naïve to the point of stupidity on the subject, in that they have not properly studied the subject. They cannot even properly interpret what the hard evidence of history says about it.

Question: How many more men must die or be impoverished by the advance of Marxism before our intellectual elites recognize the simple fact that Marxism is not good for mankind?

Answer: All of them, including the intellectual elites.

Just as the fraud of Freudian Theory is a form of psychic evolution, which describes a sort of Darwinian progression of the psyche through its own subconscious, via psycho-analysis, to achieve some sort of mental perfection, the fraud of Marxism is a form of social Darwinism through which society is expected to “naturally” evolve into worldly political perfection. That’s the fraud part, of course. Real Marxists all know that the real Marxian social progression is not natural at all and thus needs the help of the most ruthless of men to force it to happen.

Marxism is a malignant cancer on Western Civilization. And yet,the most elite among us love it.

…

We have thundering herds of
TTRSTF4
who will insist that the economic science of Marx is good, sound science. We have thundering herds of
TTRSPTF5
who will insist that the philosophical aspects of Marxism are not only sound, but profound. We have thundering herds of
TTRSJTF6
who are so convinced of the superiority of Marxian thought over Constitutional Americanism as to require supporting the cause of Marxism over Americanism via the way news is reported, editorials are slanted and the way commentary is delivered.

They know Marxism is good and Americanism is bad; they learned it in school.

As documented way back when in the Eco-Nazi Front page, the Clinton-Gore Whitehouse directly proselytized some hundred local TV weathermen into the global-warming hoax camp, in order to get them to “save the world” through how they reported the local weather. The last journalistic place you would expect to be politicized – the local weather, for heaven’s sake – became a tool of use to Marxists who’s real goal was to radically increase the scope and power of government, at the expense of the people’s power over their own lives. The myth of global crisis always promotes the felt need of emergency government action, which always increases government power, and reduces power of the people.

The Left-leaning elitists will quibble and argue on and on about the minute, mundane differences between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Social Democracy, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, all sorts of other sub-divisions, and about the economic theory, the philosophical theory, the social theory, the political theory, and on, and on, and on. They have giant text books and enormous lofty tomes to back up their arguments; they will point to highly respected sources among
TTRSTF4
to back up their arguments.

They miss the point that the whole shebang is one big popular fraud.

Currently, among the most popular in broadcast media, elitists will argue back and forth and on and on about whether or not Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, may properly be described as a Communist, or a Fascist, or a Marxist-Leninist, or an Anarchist, or a Socialist, or etc., etc., etc., and they all have their long lists of descriptors of each of the Marxian titles to “prove” what he is or what he isn’t, and exactly where he fits in the nearly infinite realm of Marxist possibilities. Sigh. He’s a Marxist. There’s nothing tough about this.

Question: What one thing was held in common by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Ho, Pol, Fidel, Obama?

Answer: The revolutionary writing of Karl Marx.

I doubt anyone today would question the statement that Marxism is virtually antithetical to Constitutional America. Marxism – every variant in existence – opposes private property, free markets and therefore also individual liberty. These are the very components that make up, that constitute, America herself. It’s the very stuff we are made of. To say that one is a little bit Leftist (or Liberal, or Progressive, etc.) is to say that one is a little bit anti-American. There can be no compromise here. Marxism and Americanism are incompatible.

Sorry to pop your learned bubble, Jordon. If it pertains to Marxist writing or theory, whether old or “transformed” or modified by someone or entirely new, it is Marxist, it is fatally flawed, it is built on either malignant lies or stupid idealism, and it is not worthy of favorable consideration by thinking men.

Is nothing of Marxism good? Is everything of Capitalism good? Is there no room for even slight compromise?

Pasquale

Date: Wed May 12 20:02:30 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Pasquale:

Yes. Nothing of Marxism is good.

No, but Capitalism does not pretend to be perfect. That is why Constitutional America is a nation of laws where no man is above the law.

There is no room for compromise with a system that intends your destruction.

Where would you begin the negotiations, if your adversary’s beginning position demands your death? It would be like negotiating for your life with a hungry crocodile, and continuing to negotiate even after you are minus a limb or two. You cannot negotiate with your committed and determined executioner.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat May 29 19:30:10 2010
From: Matt
Email: Location: Comment:

There are way too many side tracked arguments here. If you are going to stick with Marxism stick with it. If you are going to include variants then you can’t simply stick with Leninism and Stalinism. There are so many others Vic. I suggest you re-write this to actually critique Marxism and not other forms of revolutionary socialism.

Date: Sun May 30 05:18:18 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Matt:

Marxism, in practice, is made out of variants. There is no such thing as pure Marxism, never has been, and never will be. See the Great Communist Lie page. You might also look at what I said about the bogus “variants” of Marxism in the Up From Obamunism page, particularly in Component 1: Marxism and in Component 2: Elitism.

Nothing Marx wrote is practical or workable or of any use to anyone other than the most ruthless barbarians alive.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat May 29 19:34:41 2010
From: Matt
Email: Location: Comment:

Why aren't my comments appearing?

Date: Sun May 30 05:44:21 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Matt:

Patience; patience.

This Website is a one-man show, and a hobby. I work for a living, I have family, church, social and political activities that take up my time, and so this hobby does not get 24 hour coverage. I write almost compulsively to satisfy some need to tell the truth; I argue for the challenge, and the fun of it. I truly enjoy researching, writing and discussing important topics.

I have in the past experimented with automatic blogging products and discarded them all, because they all allowed profanity and vulgarity to be published. I insist on full editorial control over what gets published on my website. I limit my editing of your comments to correcting spelling errors, and corrections to gross grammatical error when and only when I am certain I can do it without changing your meaning.

Most submissions from Leftists get deleted outright, because of the extreme profanity and even incoherence that I have come to expect from the Left.

I can take an insult now and then if it is wrapped in a good argument, and I can return the favor; but, as in all things, there must be limits.

I apologize for my tardiness, but when it’s time to sleep, I sleep, when it’s time to work, I work, and when there is time to spare, I return to my hobby.

I have wondered about that myself after seeing long time lags. Right in the opening paragraphs of this Blog it says this “automatic” blog only holds 50 latest items – so, is this an automatic blog or not?

Date: Sun May 30 11:35:26 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Curmudgeon:

That part of it is automatic. It’s a feature of the SBI! (Site Build It) tool set that I built this site with and, and that I use to maintain it. Any time any page in the site gets updated, if the “trigger” is set for that page, a link gets automatically added to the top of the list on the Blog page, which is, in reality, just another web page.

There are other blogging products available, some of them free, that handle immediate updates from submitters, and the site host or web master can relax and just periodically check on things and respond as needed. That is the automatic stuff I no longer use, because it allows some nasty stuff to get through, and I don’t’ want that stuff on my website.

It’s the same reason I eliminated all of my Google “adsense” ads a long time ago. Google only allows about 250 filter link names to prohibit ads from appearing here; that’s not enough. There are millions of immoral sites and products and advertisers out there. I will not have any ads for condoms or porn sites or abortion pills on my site. I believe Google would do business with Satan himself if they could make a buck out of it.

Communism ... the utopian state dreamed of by so many fine people from Plato to Marx ... lives within the heart of every good man and woman. Our problem is that we live in our head. The heart fills itself with love. The head fills itself with greed, selfishness, slothfulness, pride, and all things contrary to a utopian state. We are not spiritually evolved to the point that we can have a communist/utopian state. It looks good on paper, but that's about it.

Date: Tue Oct 26 05:51:54 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Stephen:

Marx was a fine man?

Spirits do not evolve and neither do men, nor does society. Powerful and influential men can mold societies, make them and break them, but the human condition is what it is. We are given free will and the ability to reason. We are what we make ourselves. If our nature changes, we are no longer men.

Perfection is not of this world, but the next.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Oct 27 23:21:20 2010
From: Laura
Email: Location: Comment:

When the rich young man asked what he must do to be saved Jesus told him to sell all that he had and come follow him. Is that not a call to come and live in community and interdependence, and share totally, as in Communism?

Date: Thu Oct 28 06:10:29 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Laura:

No. The rich young man had his answer earlier, when Jesus said to him
[19] You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother. –Mark 10:19.
That was all that was needed for salvation; he had his answer. Note that these Commandments are the ones relating to man’s relationship with his fellow man, or his morality. But that answer wasn’t enough for the young man, who felt called to do more, and so he pressed the issue. I have always interpreted this to be the call to the priesthood. It is how the Apostles and the closest disciples lived, but not everyone. Priests give up the world – they give up marriage and family, and living wherever and doing as they will, for the sake of the ministry of God. Most of us are not called to that level, and fewer are chosen.

I agree with you on everything with the exception of you calling Islam false. If you call Islam false then you have to say the same thing about all other teachings of GOD. Islam is the last of the major religions and on par with Christianity. The only major difference is that the Muslims look at Jesus as a [prophet] and not the son of God or God himself. I hope that you are not reading a redneck version of the Koran or a Taliban/Terrorist version. Yes they do exist, I have seen some crazy versions of the Bible and the Koran that will blow your mind and is widely used to make the masses hate each other. The funny thing is that there is only one God and that is it. But no, we have to throw stones and tease each other with notions of how our God is better than yours when in fact we are talking about the same God.

Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that I agree with your Marxism comments/article.

Take care,

Me

Date: Sat Jan 22 05:27:59 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Me:

You have to look deeper than the superficial descriptions, appearances and self-descriptions of Islam to see its true nature. It is not on a par with Christianity or with Judaism. Once upon a time, I too thought it was just another belief system among the many. Having an interest in history, I was familiar with the period of the dawn of Islam. The Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc, among others, had early on described Islam as false, but such descriptions didn’t particularly move me at the time I read them. But then, 09/11/01 happened, and I began looking into Islam with a serious attitude, and Belloc’s words came back to me, causing me to go over that whole period again, as well as the Koran itself.

Europeans of the medieval era recognized Islam immediately, on the first encounter, as a flat-out Catholic heresy. There was never any doubt in any of their minds. Anyone of that era well versed in Christianity knew at once that everything Islam said was grossly wrong, and represented a warped and twisted version of Catholicism. The Islamic interpretation of Jesus Christ was so bad that the author could not possibly have ever even read the Bible. All you have to do is compare the Bible to the Koran to see that the words of Hilaire Belloc were right on the money.

In all likelihood Mohammed was a total illiterate who could not read or write in any language at all. His version of the Gospel came from grossly miss-reported and/or grossly miss-interpreted bits and fragments of the Christian message, passed on from non-Christian travelers and merchants who had dealt with Christians in their travels. Mohammed displayed little more than a passing familiarity with Christianity, as merely something he had heard of from others, and that’s about it.

As evidence to this claim, since you mention the fact that Islam considers Jesus to be a mere prophet, and an inferior one at that, consider the many times Scripture refers to Him as God. Here’s a partial list, copied from the Cafeteria Catholic 5 page:
>[John 8(58): Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Mark 14(61-62): But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" (62) And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

John 10(30)] I and the Father are one.

John (17): And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

John 10(22): The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

John 12(44-45): And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. [45] And he who sees me sees him who sent me.

Matthew 28(18-20): And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (19) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Matthew 8(29): And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

Matthew 14(33): And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

Matthew 16(16-19): Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (17) And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (18) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (19) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 17(5): He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

Matthew 26(53): Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Matthew 27(54): When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe, and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

Mark 1(11): and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

Mark 3(11): And whenever the unclean spirits beheld him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God."

Mark 8(29): And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."

Luke 3(22): and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

Luke 9(20) And he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Peter answered, "The Christ of God."

John 1(34): And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

Jonn 5(17-18): But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working still, and I am working." (18) This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 8(23): He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.

John 14(1-11) "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. (2) In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? (3) And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. (4) And you know the way where I am going." (5) Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" (6) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. (7) If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him." (8) Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." (9) Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'? (10) Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. (11) Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

John 16(5): But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, `Where are you going?'

John 16(27-28): for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from the Father. (28) I came from the Father and have come into the world; again, I am leaving the world and going to the Father."

John 16(32): The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.

John 18(37): Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."

John 20(17): Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

There are more; these are just the main ones from the four Gospels, not even going into the Epistles. And there are still more not quoted above. Even the angel, in the Annunciation, declared that Jesus was to be "Son of God." At the age of 12, in the Temple, He said to Mary and Joseph that He had to be about His Father's business.

And there are others from the Gospels, most notably John, attesting to the Trinitarian nature of Jesus. The many places where he said things like, the Father and I are one, and, if you have seen me you have seen the Father, and I and the Father are one, and I am in the Father and the Father is in me, and [speaking to the Father] that they may be one in me as I am one in you, etc. No one who had ever seriously read Judeo-Christian Scripture could have missed these references or what they meant. Mohammed knew nothing about them. He thought that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Moses were siblings – brother and sister. Now, how would anyone who had ever read the Old Testament and the New Testament ever come to that conclusion?

The era of God’s revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing may be added, changed or detracted from the Deposit of Faith since the closing of the Apostolic era. There are severe warnings against changing or adding or detracting anything from what was originally preached, even by the Church itself. We have this admonition from Paul, from Galatians:

[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel --
[7] not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
--Gal.1;6-9.
And, of course, we have the last lines of Revelation, the closing of the Bible itself:

[13] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
[14] Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
[15] Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
[16] "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star."
[17] The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let him who hears say, "Come." And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price.
[18] I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
[19] and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. \\[20] He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
--Rev. 22:13-20.

In the face of all of that, I submit that Islam is a new Gospel, carrying with it all the plagues and curses attendant to a new and perverted Gospel. As much as I hate to pop anyone’s happy balloon, Islam is a false religion.

Silly me. Googled for an intellectual viewpoint re Marxism for my senior students and came up with this neo-feudal claptrap. What time is the witch burning? Where is the independent thinking? Why are you so afraid of different ideas? Why are you so afraid?

Date: Tue Jun 14 06:07:39 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Alan:

Your complete lack of intellectual rigor is showing.

I fear nothing; I stand in the center of the open field.

All you have in your argumentative arsenal is the typical ad hominem attack on the messenger, not the message. If you want to write about witches, go ahead, but you might have to learn something about being an independent thinker if you want to do a good job of it.

This particular discussion is regarding the definition of Marxism, and it is not for intellectual light weights.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. The class had insisted that Obama's socialism did not work and that no one would have any motivation to study. The professor listened and then said, "Let me suggest we try an experiment this semester using the so-called 'Obama Plan.' Over the course of the semester, we will have three exams. You will receive a grade on each exam which will represent how you did on that exam - except if anyone fails the exam. If one person fails, everyone fails." Before the first test, most of the students studied alone, only concerned about how they did on the exam. When the exam was returned, students were angry that everyone received an F. The students who studied hard were upset and blamed the students who failed. They yelled at the professor and said it wasn't fair to be punished for someone else not caring. The professor replied, "Is it that they do not care, or that they need help to succeed?" As the second test rolled around, some of the students organized a study group and offered to help out the students who had not done well on the previous test. The students who did well on the test made it clear they found the whole thing ridiculous and made sure to remind the students they were helping what a huge sacrifice this was and how those students were stupid. On the second test, no one failed, but some students received Ds. The professor then announced that for the last exam, if no one received lower than a C, only the last exam would count towards the final grade. He also suggested that rather than treating some students as stupid or dead weight, the class work together and find each student's strength. Reluctantly, the entire class worked together, and students who had done well all semester found that helping other students learn the material helped them as well. It also gave them an opportunity to get to know other students outside of class. For students who had struggled during the class, they no longer feared being called stupid and asked questions more easily. As a result, the entire class had a better grasp of the material, enabling all of them to get more out of the class and go into the third test prepared. When the final test rolled around, no student scored lower than a B. After the students had congratulated each other, the professor explained why he had structured the grading as he had. "At the beginning of the semester, all of you were individuals who cared only about your own life and interests. Then you reluctantly helped each other because you had to. Finally, all of you helped each other because all of you would benefit in some way and, as a result, all of you succeeded. And that's what the Obama Plan is about - not about taking away the rewards of success, but about working together to help everyone have a shot at that success.

Date: Mon Nov 14 21:33:35 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

John:

Baloney.

This is quite a massaging of a previous post. You opened up saying the professor failed the entire class, and then at the end the entire class passed; I guess you didn’t massage it quite enough.

Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, is out to destroy Capitalism, period.

Any pipe-dream “third-way” between Socialism and Capitalism like your imaginary utopian class is fatally flawed from the beginning, but the fatal flaw cannot be detected by useful idiot followers of Marxist ideology. Hitler’s third way was National Socialism. Another third way was the so-called distributive state.

Here’s the thing: every contrived “system” of man that seeks to replace or displace or modify Capitalism thinks it is replacing or displacing or modifying an actual “system” that can be observed and controlled.

But, you see, Capitalism is not a system.

Capitalism is synonymous with a free market. Capitalism is natural. Capitalism just happens. Capitalism is what naturally happens among men who enjoy liberty.

Any attempt to modify it or control it or constrain it destroys it; if you change it, it will no longer be Capitalism. It will be a “system” like all the other systems of man.

You can falsely liable it and slander it all you want; call it a system of greed, for instance, or unfettered consumerism, or whatever. But it remains the world’s greatest wealth producer, and it only thrives when and where men are free. You cannot “fetter” the free market without similarly fettering the liberty of man.

"Capitalism is synonymous with a free market. Capitalism is natural. Capitalism just happens. Capitalism is what naturally happens among men who enjoy liberty. Any attempt to modify it or control it or constrain it destroys it."

It becomes irksome when good people fall into the “unfettered Capitalism” trap. When you put fetters on any part of the free market you wind up with some variant of Socialism, and few people seem to recognize that. To whatever degree any part of the free market is restricted or controlled, to that same degree does it become Socialist. And the history of Socialism is just failure after failure after failure.

Thank you for your insightful, thoughtful, and well-researched writing. I agree with you because HISTORY proves what you are saying is true. The truth hurts those who are against the TRUTH. I am sharing your information with others. Keep shining light in the darkness. May the LORD richly bless you.

Karl Marx said the best way to kill a tree is to kill the roots. The same holds true for a nation. The roots are the traditions, beliefs (Judeo-Christian heritage of America), history (lessons from past), and basic laws (Constitution and Bill of Rights). This is what Obama is doing.

About Marxism, Communism, & Socialism and the sin of envy and coveting other people's property and possessions: Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Romans 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips. Galations 5:21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God wants us to spread the TRUTH and freedom of Jesus Christ and stand up for what is right even when the world hates us for it: Ephesians 6:13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 2 Corinthians 4:6 "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." I Timothy 6:12 "Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses."

Date: Wed Jan 18 05:14:29 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Reese:
Amen, and amen.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Jan 18 01:06:01 2012
From: Ann
Email: Location: Comment:

God means what HE says about Israel all throughout the Bible and we better take heed.

Biblical Archaeology: Egyptology in the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible) Contrary to popular Egyptologist belief, the Torah does contain numerous hints of contemporary life in ancient Egypt. http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48967121.html

Jews in Medical and Life Sciences Jews have accounted for some 40% of US Nobel Prizes in medicine and constitute over one-third of the combined membership of the life sciences divisions of the US National Academy of Sciences and its affiliated Institute of Medicine. http://www.jinfo.org/Biomedical_Research.html

Learn about Islam from a former Islamic PLO terrorist, Walid Shoebat, who is now a Christian and works to tell the world the truth about the danger Islam poses to everyone in the world. Mark of the Beast is Islam

In the interest of keeping to the given topic, it might be better in future submissions related to Islam to attach them to one or the other of the pages dealing with Islam. You might begin by looking at the Refuting Mohammed page, and all the links in the right hand column of that page.

In an effort to organize the pages so that people (and I) can find related topics in one place, I started building some pages like that one with related other pages linked in the right column. Look at the navigation buttons at the left; the ones toward the top with only one button below the description are sort of summary pages on a given topic. Those are the right-column “organizer” pages.

Keep up the good fight; never yield ground; advance.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Feb 01 05:41:48 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

I feel the need to go farther and add to this definition of Marxism the statement that Marxism is a strategy of world revolution masquerading as an ideology of fairness and perfection.

See the Refuting Marx page for the details of the super elaborate fraud of Marxism, from its earliest beginnings.

See the American Political Ideologies page for how this elaborate fraud of Marxism has treacherously interwoven itself into American political thought.

Because of this, America may no longer be described as Capitalist. The entire economy is controlled, not free, and therefore America is now some strange new variant of Marxian Socialism. Capitalism – the free market – is not and cannot be planned or controlled. Capitalism is natural. Capitalism just happens, or comes into being, when and where men enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Marxist revolution has been quietly going on right under our noses, probably since the 1848 publication of Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

The very, very few “In The Know” treacherous American Marxists at the very top of the heap know full well what it is all about, and they intend to become the dictators (or compete to be the dictator) once the revolution is complete. All the rest are various levels of Marxism’s Useful Idiots, from the various levels of Keynesianism, Progressivism and Liberalism on down to the real dumb asses of ACORN, the Union Blue Shirts and the Occupy Wall Streeters.

For the most part, they have softened or abandoned belief in God, they oppose all Western tradition, and they seek to “perfect” mankind, through good governance. They see themselves as enlightened intellectuals and sophisticates. The Democrat Party has become the Party of fornication, adultery and sodomy, as a first step toward their view of perfection through super-sophistication. The various levels of American Useful Idiocy, although with differing levels of intensity, oppose all authority, just as Marx suggested.

So, in the final analysis, Marxism is more of a treacherous strategy than it is an ideology.

Hey I was just wondering if there is someone who can explain a bit about Marxism being used to help us understand global political thinking, like the extent to which is does or if you don't agree I would also appreciate the information...
Thanks

Date: Fri Feb 24 05:00:48 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Paddy Daly:

Marxism, like Islam, can only be used to help us understand a global threat to the liberty of man. There is an can be no global system of government that does not impose itself on man by crushing the God given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The only people in the world who actively seek to control all global politics are Marxists, Moslems and lunatics.

The best global strategy nations like yours and mine can adopt is to maintain moral allegiance, close friendly ties and open economic cooperation, while keeping an eye on everyone else.

The global political thinking of Marxism and Islam involve eventual world domination. That needs to be defended against politically and militarily and attacked ideologically.

Comment:: This article is an amazing, wonderful example of typical dogmatic prejudice, straw-man argumentation, overall ignorance and so very many other fallacies! I am using it as an introduction for my philosophy and history classes! Thank You! :)

Date: Sat May 05 15:55:25 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

PseudoLines:

You are most welcome.

I’ll bet you went to Harvard.

Regards,

Vic

From: Vic Biorseth

Date: Sunday, September 02, 2012

Upgraded the page to reflect the new BB 2.0 SBI! 3.0 release. (LOVE this new release!)

Regards,

Vic

Friday, April 19, 2013

Added link into Sociological
Definition Pages right-column link set.

Date: Mon Apr 22 22:18:26 2013From: Jim AEmail:Location:Comment:

Vic,

Like you, I've also considered Marx, Darwin, and Freud to constitute an Unholy Trinity. But Rousseau also deserves inclusion, and as more than just an honorary member.

Date: Mon Apr 22 05:48:20 2013From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Jim A:

Agreed. Rousseau was more influential in the French Revolution than the American; the first was marked by extreme secularism and indifference (where not cruel persecution) of religion, and the second was marked by a strong but general inter-faith Christianity.

Rousseau was at different times Catholic, Calvinist, Deist and generally indifferent. He was consumed by introverted romanticism, to the point where he gave greater value to subjective than to objective truth. He "felt" or "sensed" the "natural" tendency of society to "evolve" toward some grand ideal of redistributive equality, which might have made him a precursor to Marx himself.

We can look at the history of what was produced from these two great revolutions and judge the enormous difference in results. The French version, with its guillotines and howling mobs, produced another emperor, by the name of Napoleon. The American version unleashed individual human liberty, and produced the greatest wealth-producing engine the world has ever seen.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue Jul 15 2014From: Vic BiorsethComment:

Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic
Center to
Catholic American Thinker.

Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option
June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .

Regards,

Vic

Language and Tone Statement

Please note the language and tone of this monitored Website. This is not the place to just stack up vulgar
one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or
introduce any position or argument, submissions must meet our high Roman Catholic and Constitutional American standards of Truth, logical rigor and civil discourse. We will not
participate in merely trading insults, nor will we tolerate participants merely
trading insults. Participants should not be
thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to
defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a
coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t
embarrass yourself. Nonsensical, obscene, blindly & doggedly anti-Catholic, anti-American, immoral or merely insulting submissions will
not be published here. If you have something serious to contribute to
the conversation, be prepared to back it up, keep it clean, keep it civil, and it will be published. We humbly
apologize to all religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say
these things, but the Hard Left is what it always was, the New Leftist Liberals are what they are, and the Internet is what it is.

"Clickbait" advertising links are not acceptable for posting here.

If you fear intolerant Leftist repercussions, do not use your real name and do not include email or any identifying information. Elitist Culturally Marxist Pure Authoritarians cannot and will not tolerate your freedom of speech or any opposition to their rigid authoritarian, anti-equality, anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-property, hedonistic, anti-Constitution, pro-Marxist, pro-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-male, sexist, pro-homosexual, anti-heterosexual, anti-white, racist, anti-Western, anti-American, Globalist, anti-Nation, blatantly immoral, totally intolerant and bigoted point of view.

This Form cannot be submitted until the missing fields (labelled below in red) have been filled in

ADD COMMENT

Please note that all fields followed by an asterisk must be filled in.

If you want to establish, launch and maintain an independent personally owned actual WebSite like this one, go to SBI! They will make a Web-Master out of you at the very least, and make you into an entrepreneur with your own business if that's your goal. You don't need any special skills or special knowledge, other than the topic of whatever your WebSite will be about.

Silence in the face of evil is speaking. "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent!
Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten
because of silence." Saint Catherine of Siena

“An
error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is
suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of
secret complicity.” – Pope Felix III

“Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God's creatures.
What you are in God's sight is what you are and nothing more”—Justice Clarence Thomas

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then, is the sin committed by the person who claims to have a 'right' to persist in evil-in any sin at all-and who thus rejects redemption." Pope Saint John Paul the GreatDOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM

"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men-when we can do it-is no less a sin than to encourage them." Pope St. Felix III

If a purposeful violator of the Constitution who is a sworn officer of the governemt is not a domestic enemy of America and a traitor, then
there is no such thing, and the Constitution itself is without meaning,
and America has lost its grounding and its very purpose for being. Anti-American-Court

Live Interviews

"All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics." Pope Pius V

"All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics." Pope St. Pius X

Click the image above topublish your essay or article here,to be included among those below.

Submitted Articles andReprinted Articles

(Note: copyrights on these articles wherever present will supersede the WebSite copyright at the bottom footer of every WebPage)

The Heresy of Chrislam. Those claiming that the “Allah” of Islam’s Qu’ran and Yahweh or God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are one and the same are missing one glaring point: GOD NEVER CONTRADICTS HIMSELF.

Never be lukewarm.Life itself demands passion.He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input. Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.

NewsletterCatholic American ThinkerFree E-zine Subscription

Email

You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you theCatholic American ThinkerNewsletterand absolutely nothing else.

"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII

"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi

Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston
Churchill

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who
deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand

Atheist Genesis:

In the beginning there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing.
And then nothing accidentally exploded and created everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally encountered other bits of everything and formed some new kinds of everything.
And then some bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into self-replicating bits of everything.
And then some self-replicating bits of everything accidentally arranged themselves into dinosaurs.
See?

“ … for I have sworn upon
the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind
of man.” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush in
the year of our Lord 1800. The context
involved resistance to any form of Christianity or Deism legally imposing
itself throughout the USA. We must wonder what he might say
about our current government's forced imposition of strict secularism – i.e.,
anti-theism – throughout the USA. I submit that legally enforced secularism of society, like theocracy, like Marxism,
and like Islam, is, precisely, a form of tyranny over the mind of man.Nothing good can come from the religious cleansing of Judaeo-Christian society. Government imposed secularism is just another form of theocracy.